PARVEEN GUPTA vs GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPTT.

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order dated 24.4.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 995 of 2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum). The dispute relates to the alleged misuse of telephone No. 577984 which has been issued in the name of the appellant Shri Parveen Gupta and was installed at S.C.O. No. 20, Sector 11, Panchkula. It is alleged that the appellant was running the business with his partner Shri Rajinder Mittal. The said business was being run by the appellant and Shri Rajinder Mittal and the aforesaid telephone was being utilized in connection with the business. At the time when it was issued to the subscriber, the complainant/appellant it had no STD/ISD facility. In June, 1997 the appellant shifted to chandigarh and he handed over the aforesaid telephone to OP No. 4 Shri Rajinder Mittal, resident of House No. 550, Sector 11, Panchkula and at present lodged in Central Jail, Ambala.

THE grievance of the appellant was that the respondent No. 4 Shri Rajinder Mittal in connivance with the staff of the Telephone Department and after forgoing the signatures of the appellant obtained the facility of STD/ISD calls and then misused the same with the result that the appellant received a bill regarding the telephone showing arrears of Rs. 1,97,874/-. It was alleged that the Telephone Department along with Shri Rajinder Mittal be directed and not to recover the aforesaid arrears of Rs. 1,97,874/- or any other amount alleged due against the said telephone because of the fraud and further claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. The District Forum issued notice of the complaint case to the respondents. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement contending, inter alia that the appellant had taken the said telephone for social and personal purpose and handed over the possession of the telephone to the respondent No. 4 against department rules for business purpose. The telephone is installed in the name of the complainant and he is liable to pay the telephone bills whether used by Shri Rajinder Mittal, respondent No. 4 or anybody else. It was also mentioned that the complainant had filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh and this fact had been concealed from the District Forum.

The respondent No. 4 Shri Rajinder Mittal filed a separate written statement denying and disputing allegations made against him regarding the alleged forgery and fraud in connivance with the staff of the telephone department. He also contended that the signatures on blank paper were obtained under coercion by the police on which affidavit dated 26.7.1999 was got prepared by practising forgery and in collusion with the police and complainant/appellant. He has contended that he had no concern or connection with the aforesaid telephone No. 577984 and further denied that he ever remained in possession of the said telephone and ever used it. He also denied about giving any undertaking in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala that he would pay the telephone bills involved in the complaint case. By way of preliminary objection, he contended that the complaint involve allegations relating to fraud and forgery and the same were not maintainable legally before the District Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act).

ON the date of evidence i.e. 13.2.2003, the complainant did not lead evidence and prayed for adjournment which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs and the Counsel for the complainant was told that a final opportunity was being granted and the case was adjourned to 24.4.2003. ON 24.4.2003 again, the complainant failed to lead any evidence and did not even pay the cost. The District Forum proceeded to consider the complaint case on merit as the OPs also declined to file any evidence by way of affidavit. The District Forum held that there were allegations of forgery and fraud made in the complaint case and the same could not be tried in summary jurisdiction for a Consumer Court. It was held that it was not a fit case to be disposed of by the District Forum in a summary jurisdiction and if advised, the complainant may file a civil suit in a competent Court. It was also held that the complainant had not come to the District Forum with clean hands as he concealed the fact of a civil suit having been filed though it is not clear from the impugned order that any documentary evidence regarding the filing of the civil suit had been placed on record by the respondents. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the main grievance of the complainant/appellant was that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the telephone department ought to have disconnected the telephone for non-payment as per the mandatory requirement under the relevant rules but the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 allowed the telephone to be misused by the respondent No. 4 and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were thus in collusion with respondent No. 4 in the misuse of the telephone. The allegation of fraud and cheating was made against the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 forged the signatures of the appellant on the application seeking the facility of STD/ISD on the aforesaid telephone. The allegations of fraud, cheating and forgery are serious allegations which require a detailed and thorough adjudication which cannot appropriately be done by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies functioning under the C.P. Act, which confers only summary jurisdiction on such Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

IN the absence of the copy of the plaint or written statement regarding the civil suit which is referred to in the impugned order in the pleadings of the respondents, it cannot be said as to what where the averments made in the civil suit by the complainant/appellant and what were the findings recorded by the Civil Court. If the civil suit was decided on merit and the judgment was allowed to become final then its legal consequences have to be taken into consideration and if civil suit has not been decided on merit and has been allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn, then its legal consequneces have to be considered. Under these circumstances, the complainant/appellant, if so advised, may approach, a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if legally he can avail the remedy against the respondents in respect of the aforesaid telephone and the bill in dispute. The District Forum has rightly held that it could not decide such a dispute involving the allegations of fraud, cheating and forgery in summary jurisdiction available to it under the provisions of the C.P. Act. The appeal is dismissed in limine. However, the appellant is relegated to his remedy as indicated above and subject to the conditions mentioned in the earlier part of our order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.